Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] Introduce security_create_user_ns() | From | Daniel Borkmann <> | Date | Tue, 28 Jun 2022 00:15:22 +0200 |
| |
On 6/27/22 11:56 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 8:11 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 11:21:37PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > ... > >>> This is one of the reasons why I usually like to see at least one LSM >>> implementation to go along with every new/modified hook. The >>> implementation forces you to think about what information is necessary >>> to perform a basic access control decision; sometimes it isn't always >>> obvious until you have to write the access control :) >> >> I spoke to Frederick at length during LSS and as I've been given to >> understand there's a eBPF program that would immediately use this new >> hook. Now I don't want to get into the whole "Is the eBPF LSM hook >> infrastructure an LSM" but I think we can let this count as a legitimate >> first user of this hook/code. > > Yes, for the most part I don't really worry about the "is a BPF LSM a > LSM?" question, it's generally not important for most discussions. > However, there is an issue unique to the BPF LSMs which I think is > relevant here: there is no hook implementation code living under > security/. While I talked about a hook implementation being helpful > to verify the hook prototype, it is also helpful in providing an > in-tree example for other LSMs; unfortunately we don't get that same > example value when the initial hook implementation is a BPF LSM.
I would argue that such a patch series must come together with a BPF selftest which then i) contains an in-tree usage example, ii) adds BPF CI test coverage. Shipping with a BPF selftest at least would be the usual expectation.
Thanks, Daniel
| |